By Thane Grauel
WESTPORT — First Selectwoman Jennifer Tooker on Thursday asked the Long Lots School Building Committee to update its plan to replace the seven-decade-old elementary school, proposing what she called a compromise.
The request came a few weeks after her initial request encountered strong reservations from some members of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Out is a baseball field where the Westport Community Gardens have been for two decades. But remaining is a multipurpose field, minus baseball, where the gardens are now.
Back on the Hyde Lane property are the gardens — which Tooker previously proposed relocating the town-owned Baron’s South property. But they’ll be moved somewhere else on the property and, she said, perhaps with a smaller footprint.
An earlier 8-24 request, which is required under state law before a municipality can redevelop property it owns, encountered harsh scrutiny from the P&Z on Dec. 18. The Planning and Zoning Commission, under state law, is the gatekeeper for such town land-use proposals. That skeptical reception prompted Tooker to withdraw the application for modifications from an expected vote by the P&Z on Jan. 8.
Members of that body had concerns about a baseball field replacing the community gardens, and the effects on neighbors who had seen a passive, far-less intense use of the nearby land for years.
“The Planning and Zoning members gave us a lot of feedback, well into the early hours of the next day,” Tooker said Thursday of the December P&Z hearing.
“Since that meeting I have spoken, more than once, with the chair, Paul Lebowitz, to clarify the feedback we received on 12/18, and to think about what could be done to address that feedback,” Tooker said.
“I have also worked with the chair of the Long Lots School Building Committee, Jay Keenan, to talk about modifications to the 8-24 application and to come back to you with a compromise,” she said.
“So tonight, I am asking you to consider a compromise,” Tooker said, adding that the baseball field and moving the gardens off site (Tooker had proposed Baron’s South) were points of contention.
She said her updated 8-24 request would include all the aspects of the previous plan, “but moving the multipurpose field with no baseball diamond to the upper portion of the property (where the gardens are) … and moving the community gardens to a new location on the property.”
“And it may very well have a smaller footprint,” Tooker said.
The meeting itself had its own troubled path.
First scheduled for Tuesday, it was postponed by foul weather to Thursday. The original meeting space, Room 309 at Town Hall, would have been woefully inadequate for the expected crowd. Thursday morning, the building committee announced (perhaps with inadequate legal notice under state open-meeting laws) the location was moved to Room 201, which can accommodate more people.
But those arriving for the meeting saw building committee Chairman Jay Keenan fixing notices to various doors at Town Hall saying the meeting instead would in the Town Hall auditorium.
There appeared no confusion about where the meeting was for those arriving, and the crowd that attended, 80 people or more, was about twice what would have fit into Room 201.
Several members of the public spoke, including Long Lots parents, neighboring landowners, and others, including District 9 Representative Town Meeting member Jennifer Johnson, who was disappointed the meeting was not recorded electronically by the building committee, as she requested. She noted it was likely the town’s most expensive project yet — estimated cost is more than $90 million — and everyone with an interest could not likely attend.
Toni Simonetti, a gardener, had questions about the size of the multipurpose field. She told the Westport Journal after the meeting that as far as she knew, gardeners weren’t consulted about the “so-called compromise.”
She was putting her faith in the P&Z.
The building committee discussed Tooker’s request at a work session. Some members were not happy with the new approach, but they all voted unanimously to ask the architectural firm to come up with a plan matching the first selectwoman’s request, in time to be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its Jan. 22 meeting.
Thane Grauel grew up in Westport and has been a journalist in Fairfield County and beyond for 35 years. Reach him at editor@westportjournal.com. Learn more about us here.
This compromise seems to address the comments or objections of the P&Z, and does not impact the original estimate to build the new school as soon as possible. We do want to ensure that the multi purpose fields is not reduced substantially even if a baseball diamond is not included. The field is used by the school for their field day and other events, as well as practices and games every single day.
The proposed garden on long lots should still give pause for reflection. Given that the gardens could be smaller footprint, and access time is also in question during school hours, it would be a better use of land if it was relocated to another site where it can expand and accessed during the day. The Westport community gardens have to make a decision collectively on what is best for their community, as well as the P&Z.
In a Town that has more than twenty ball fields and one single community garden location, we can allocate usage appropriately to make sure that the needs of our residents, including the Long Lots students, are met. It doesn’t take a genius to do the right thing instead of an expedient thing. Common sense says, if the school is being rebuilt and we are allocating space on the land where the gardens already exist (while keeping the gardens), they can stay where they are and the field can go elsewhere on-site, even if the First Selectwoman wants to take a grudge out on the gardeners. (Though it is interesting how they *can* find alternative plans if they want to.)
I’m not sure how this revised proposal addresses the concerns mentioned by P&Z. (Nor am I sure how it addresses the concerns of the neighbors.) I’m not saying it doesn’t – I’m saying that it doesn’t look that way to me.
The “safety” concern is as preposterous and offensive as it was yesterday. For that matter, when the same matter was brought up twenty years ago, it was considered and addressed. Nothing in the ensuing twenty years has suggested otherwise. But if Joe wants to pretend the gardeners are a threat to children, he can knock himself out. (Anyone who wants to know what “safety” was a code word for, back then, is free to ask, as it had nothing to do with “safety.”)
“The Westport community gardens have to make a decision collectively on what is best for their community” is a passive aggressive take, laying the groundwork, once again, for people like Joe to blame the gardeners if they don’t get every single thing that they want exactly when they want it. This matter is in P&Z’s hands. It behooves the administration to put forward a proposal that P&Z will approve. That isn’t the job of the gardeners. (As an aside, I wish people who aren’t involved with the gardens in the slightest would not deign to say what is best for the gardeners, when they neither know nor care.)
I sincerely hope that a LLS proposal comes forward that is acceptable to P&Z, that the funding bodies consider appropriate, and that can commence sooner than later. That should be obvious. Not that I speak for them in any way, shape, or form, but there is absolutely no good reason for the continuing existence of the Gardens on it’s current location to have any impact on a school rebuilding plan. Buildings go up in tight spaces without destroying neighboring properties all of the time. A solution can quickly be found if there is the wherewithal to seek it.
This position by the First Selectwoman is a case of
“Nish -de-hee-nish-da-hi”, which comes down to a position of nothingness. Her position is weaker than anything so far in this matter.
Build the school. That’s necessary.
Keep the Community Gardens where they are. That’s logical.
Unless the First Selectwoman would prefer to see this as the issue that leads to her defeat at election time. Of course there are other issues but this will be the one that will hurt the most.
Joe Nader if the proposed field will be on what is now the community gardens how can you say the field that doesn’t exist yet be so regularly used by Long Lots students? What piece of this puzzle am I missing? Trying to find sense in your argument but how smart is it to have field day on boiling artificial turf on a mid day in June not to mention the known increased abrasions an artificial turf often causes? These kids will now bring microplastic pellets back into the school as shedding is inherent and carried in their sneakers often making a mess.
Also interesting the baseball folks are ok with this
after insisting a Babe Ruth size diamond was absolutely necessary.
Also wondering much will this new artificial turf field be used by the Mickey Sykes pay to play soccer organization? There have been past
online remarks that Mickey Sykes offered a $ incentive for Parks and Rec to build a turf field as they were unhappy with the ill maintenance of our current town fields for their paid programs as well as the ability to recruit more paying players? Was the baseball diamond just a smokescreen? These remarks have neither been subsequently confirmed or denied that I have seen. How do we get clarity on this? Just rumor or fact? I for one would like to know if I am off base on this issue.
Would it not be wise to get to the bottom of who exactly authorized the building of a new field be coupled with the BOE mandate to design a new school and why this was a closely guarded secret that created such angst and division of residents?
Why is uncoupling not on the table? Let’s get the school done with then delve into the Garden vs Field dilemma after the dust settles and we can get a better grip on very possible flooding and toxic microplastic run off and involve the gardeners in the planning and decision making process if the Garden in fact must be moved. Let’s also get a real grip on how and when this field will be used and by who before anything is concrete.
Our administration has seemed to have adopted a non transparent mode of operation ie The Hamlet, Parker Harding and now Long Lots remediation which is causing unnecessary angst among residents due to lack of timely and truthful information.
This is as important as any school. This is our elected to serve the people Government we are talking about and their lapses and apparent operate in secrecy tendencies must not be ignored by any interest group for any reason. We all deserve right of representation and transparency past and present.
Chris, I admire your passion, but suggest you spend a few minutes familiarizing yourself with some of the key facts. To wit:
– the comments about the usage are based on the field that already exists and will be destroyed to make room for the new school; it is heavily used by school and town now and so can readily be known that it will be the case after construction;
– at no point in any of the proposals has the type of surface been recommended or proposed. My personal preference is indeed for a turf field as this past fall’s weather showed our current facilities are not sufficient to support the level of usage and I’m not callous enough to believe the parents in Norwalk, Greenwich, Darien, Easton, etc care for their kids less than we do because they have turf fields. But, this has always been a next-stage point and raising it now is nothing more than a bogeyman;
– Mickey Kydes – not Sykes – is contracted by Westport Soccer to provide professional coaching for our town rec and travel programs. It has nothing to do with his “pay to play” clubs. It’s not Mickey that benefits from higher-quality playing surfaces, it is the children of the town that benefit.
As someone who was also at the meeting last night I echo Katie’s comments below. The tone of the discourse was pleasant and respectful. Hopefully we can all move forward on the same basis.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record I repeat my previous observation:
From a reading of the relevant documents – the BOE specifications and the Selectwomen’s statement creating and empowering the LLSBC – it does not appear that the building committee has any power or authority to recommend any activity whatsoever on the neighboring property.
Before proceeding to address the “compromise” suggested by the Selectwomen, it behooves the P&Z to solicit the Town Attorney’s opinion as to whether the committee has that power and if so, from where is it derived.
Larry, the BOE educational specs is used by the building committee to design the new school, and a feasibility study determined that in order to construct the new building next to an existing and functional school, they need to use the athelic fields and gardens to be able to get this done as soon as possible. They are already planning to build a school literally right next to another school. I don’t know if you know this, but the State empowers the BOE to manage the schools, and there is a separation of duties. The town can only approve/deny funding to the school. The town cannot come up with the educational specifications on its own. This has to come from the BOE. And the BOE cannot tell the town what to do with the rest of the property, and even the school building is still owned by the town, not the school. Hope this clarifies some of the nuances here.
Earlier this week, you wrote about twenty times: “The Gardens do not belong on school property.”
Now you are saying, “the BOE cannot tell the town what to do with the rest of the property…”
“Clarifying nuances” indeed!
You could have simply asked me to clarify my discrepancy. There is no need to turn this into personal attacks.
And you already know the answer, because you have mentioned it up many times. The property is a single lot at 13 Hyde Ln and is owned by the Town of Westport. Any changes to the property requires an 8-24 application. Even the town cannot decide on its own what it wants to do with the property without the approvals of the other boards and RTM in town.
And I have corrected my statement regarding the gardens on school property. I do appreciate gardening. It is hard work, and a great recreation that is good for one’s health. No question about that, and these are not empty words. Westport gardens have been relocated three times already; they were located behding Staples at first, then they moved to Wakeman until Bedford Middle school needed to be built, and now they are at Long Lots. So there is a pattern here, and my statement is that a Community garden does not belong on school property. It is clearly not a symbiotic relationship, and their existence are at odds with each other. Whenever a school needs change, the garden needs to be moved. If the school would like to build a garden for educational purposes, and oversee that garden, then there is no issue there.
And I would like to clarify another important aspect of this conversation. Maybe people who support the garden think that there might be a remote chance that it could be kept intact, hence saved. I wish this was true and that’s my opinion, and that of the building committee. Keep in mind that we are trying to build an entirely new school, right next to another functioning school, and with a bigger footprint. This project is everything but a simple task. We don’t have the finances of a private school or the State to help us. The risks need to be managed and keep this project on track.
After the new school is built, and the gardens and athletic fields are destroyed in the process, then there is the decision on where to place back the fields and gardens on the property. This becomes a land use conversation, and what is needed most. We have been talking a lot about the baseball field, and how little it is used. I am really glad that the converstation going forward will not longer be about the baseball field, so we can refocus on what is most important here, to build a new school as quickly as possible, and without any unecessary delays.
So we cannot bifurcate the construction from the land use because the construction company needs to know what goes where before anything is built, so this can be incorporated in the final plans.
We have a serious issue at hand. We want to avoid another CMS crisis. And I welcome others to make their point of view as long as it is respectful and based on facts. I am not interested in the lies and consiprary theories that have plagued this conversation for months, because they only promote the interests of a special group, at the expense of what is best for the town.
I’m sorry that you perceive my words as a personal attack. But if you repeat inaccuracies over and over, I feel an obligation to correct the record for the people who might think that you speak the truth. I don’t want honest people to be swayed by misleading information. I’m not sure why you would hope otherwise.
Most of the smart things I learned in my life I learned from my father. And one of his favorite sayings was, “always consider the source.”
You’ve misrepresented the municipal property as school property. You’ve misrepresented the Community Gardens as a private “garden club.” You’ve made absurd claims about some safety threat that the gardeners might pose to the students at LLS, I hope that when people read your comments, they will consider the source. Saying “oops” when you are corrected really doesn’t seem… authentic.
There ain’t nothin’ more powerful than the odor of mendacity.
And, seriously, Larry Weisman has forgotten more about land use regulations than you or I will ever know. So when you target him with condescending comments (not that he needs my defense) you might as well be brandishing a sign that says you are a fool. I have all confidence that P&Z will not be swayed by foolishness.
But keep on clarifying those nuances for all of us. I sincerely apologize if you perceive any of this as a personal attack.
I repeat my desire to see a Long Lots rebuild happen as soon as possible, but I don’t want it to happen without the proper checks and balances that protect the interests off all of our residents. The First Selectwoman can easily expedite the process by delivering a proposal that addresses the concerns of P&Z, rather than wasting all of our time. A safe new school is far more important.
Anyone who believes that a new building can’t be built without destroying the twenty-year-old Community Gardens has bought a bill of goods.
When people representing one special interest claim to be representing the good of Town while also claiming that other people are representing a special interest, they are practicing hypocrisy of the highest order.
Respectfully, Mr. Nader misses my point.
Some years ago I went to the P&Z with aa resubdivision application on the island at Compo Mill. When I finished my presentation one of the Commissioners said, “We can’t approve this because you haven’t provided the parking spaces required by the regulations.” I said, “but there are no cars in the island,” to which he replied, “Tgat may be but we are only charged with enforcing the regulations and have no power to vary them.”
So, much to my client’s dismay , I went to thevZBA, got a variance and came back to the P&Z.
I thought at the time that was pretty silly but of course, it was correct. A board or committee or commission, whether elected or appointed, can only act within the bounds of its authorization.
In this case, the LLSBC derives its authority from and its authority is limited by one or both of two sources: the BOE Specifications and/or the Selectwomen’s statement appointing it and defining its purpose and the limits of its authority.
In neither of these documents is there the slightest hint that the committee’s authority extends to a town-owned property unrelated to the school site and administered not by the BOE but by another town agency.
In my view, absent a charge to include this adjacent property in its recommendations, the LLSBC has no more right to recommend its use as a part if the school feasibility study than would have to recommend building pickleball court on town-owned property a half mile away.
Of course it may be I who is missing the point, and if so, we could clarify matters by asking the Town Attorney for his opinion.
Mr. Weisman, the P&Z consolidated 11 and 13 Hyde Lane into one lot after the town purchased the Jaeger property and merged it with the Long Lots Elementary School property. It is a single property, and you can look it up in the town online system.
As an attendee of the meeting I was pleased to see the level of respect our town residents had for one another. I believe this compromise meets the demands of the parties involved – a garden remains onsite, field space isn’t reduced, and most importantly, the kids get a new, safe, updated school.
It appears that for some reason Jen Tooker is intent upon destroying the current Community Gardens and having a new one initiated somewhere else – presenting a Hobson’s Choice under a rubric of compromise.
If, as it appears, this modification was devised absent any collaboration with the neighbors and gardeners, it suggests it was intended only to grease the 8-24 rather than actually desiring a concensus. Perhaps this is satisfactory to the LL neighbors and gardeners – as I am neither, I cannot say. But direct collaboration would speak volumes.
I AM NOT stating that Jen Tooker is obligated to do so. Clearly she has the authority to dictate terms. But it is equally true that she could…and trying to collaborate and trying to reach consensus would be the right thing, the neighborly thing to do.
I still do not understand why that is so abhorrent.
And why is Ms. Tooker so intent on the destruction of the current Community Gardens? Is it truly necessary in order to accomplish the goal of remedying the problems at Long Lots? Doubts linger.
Of course we are all aware of the LLSBC assertion that “the gardens MUST be destroyed to accommodate a construction staging area”. If THAT is Ms. Tooker’s reason, then she should say so – BUT then ensure that that assertion is an absolute necessity before making decisions and submitting an irrevocable 8-24 proposal.
What if that mandatory staging area = garden destruction assertion is simply untrue? Don’t we all deserve to know that as an absolute certainty before making decisions? Doesn’t the P&Z need to know? Is that so much of an ask considering what’s at stake?
It’s a very small but essential request. .
Without permitting other construction experts the ability to officially provide their opinion, she, the P&Z, the BoF. the RTM, and we will never know. THAT lack of adequate due diligence is illogical and unfair, because the LLSBC, (regardless of their hard work and good intentions), cannot possibly consider themselves to be the final arbiter of what might be feasible. Neither should the Town.
Larry Weisman has been begging for Jen Tooker to permit Westport’s Public Site and Building Commission to get involved. Others with credible construction experience and pertinent expertise have been asserting that other options DO exist and should be considered prior to any final decision being rendered..
Westport’s residents and taxpayers deserve to hear ALL these available opinions before being mandated to accept this latrst proposal and obligated to pay for this particular Long Lots remedy opinion.
(Incidentally spending $100+ million without obtaining at least several pertinent objective opinions is a dereliction of responsibility that no rational homeowner would consider for the sake of their own budget – even under pressure. )
HOWEVER, if the staging necessity IS NOT her reason for destroying the current gardens, please tell the community what the compelling reason is so that everyone will clearly understand. Only with that information can a productive discussion occur and knowledgeable conclusion be determined.
In my opinion, the rationale for this Hobson’s Choice should be clearly articulated, better understood – and then verified.
They probaly dont want people hanging around the school, so little kids can play and have fun during recess. Its a no brainer, new school … dump the gardens..
Thank you jen tooker for your leadership on this issue, public gardening is not a priority.
I feel bad for the garden people,
Housatonic campus has a community garden, they give food away for free.. you guys should go there, in fact you could move all the dirt there.
Bridgeport is a much better place for the gardens. You can take the bus there everyday
I would just like to state here for the record that Parents For A New LLS does not and has never advocated for the permanent removal of the gardens from our town. We simply ask for the acknowledgement that the grounds will be off limits during construction and that the garden location will likely need to be dug up in order to install a new drainage system for the site. The compromise being put forth in this new 8-24 returns the gardens to school campus. In the interim I would also certainly advocate for an evaluation of other – larger and more accessible- plots in town for the gardens should they wish to relocate. The community gardens have a wonderful community and we would love to find a way for that community to continue to grow – we just need to come to terms with the fact that it might not be best suited on the grounds of LLS. In no way would we ever ask our neighbors to bus to other towns. That comment is not in line with our mission and is certainly not what we mean when we say Students Come First.
Given the misleading attacks on the Gardeners last week, you sound kind of like the Trump voter who then openly wonders how January 6 happened.
Todd’s on your team – sorry, but you own that.
Chris, I applaud Sandra for making that point and keeping the conversation respectful. Instead you chose to attack the comment, and personally attack her and come up with false accusations. Do you seriously think you are contributing to this important discussion anymore?
Now you say that the Community Gardens “have a wonderful community” after participating in a stream of vilification and disparaging false narratives about their organization and the character of their community – including their “selfishness” and the despicable assertion that given their picks and shovels they are dangerous to children.
Had you actually believed they to be a “wonderful community” you would have never falsely disparaged their intentions in this manner, and instead spent more time reading, understanding, and caring about what they have ACTUALLY been saying.
Historically, public schools in Connecticut and other states were sited on municipal land which was not prime for residential development. These sites may have been used for landfills, power stations, farms, orchards, industrial facilities or as places where adulterated or contaminated soil was dumped before they were used for schools and playing fields.
Many schools in our state have also been sited on properties that are prone to flooding and groundwater incursion because they contain sandy loam (wetlands) or because of nearby creeks, streams or rivers. Because the land flooded, developers could not build homes.
With flooding comes a potential for the migration of contaminants, including metals and pesticides, carried by groundwater and surface water, moving on and through the soil.
In Connecticut’s past few decades, soil contamination that may be harmful to health has been identified on town and school grounds in Greenwich, Fairfield, Westport, Stratford, Hamden and Hartford, among other places.
The parcel of land next to the school covered now and for two decades by a community garden was previously a family-owned garden, orchard and greenhouse. The owners used persistent metals and pesticides, including arsenic, chlordane and possible copper sulfate, which are toxic at low doses on the crops. There is groundwater and a nearby waterway feeding the water table there.
Additionally, present and historical community reports of wet and flooded conditions within Long Lots School also suggest that groundwater investigations and monitoring are warranted to mitigate exposures and to protect students and staff within the school.
The health and safety of students staff and residents, including gardeners, should lead discussions about the proper use of the land and the school at 11/13 Hyde Lane.
Schools and gardens should be safe first and residents rely upon town leaders to protect them.
What additional “facts” have been uncovered since the P&Z meeting on December 18th to foster this new proposal? Did Parks & Rec finally provide a detailed usage schedule of all the fields for the 2023 calendar year instead of the color-coded grid that no one was able to read or decipher? If so, is the public going to have sufficient time to review the results prior to the next P&Z meeting ? Why has the supposedly much needed Babe Ruth league field been scrapped for a multi-purpose field? Could it be because baseball field usage proved that a 4th babe ruth league field was NOT needed, even though at the October 30th Parks & Rec meeting Parks & Rec tried to convince the taxpayers that one was needed by using misleading information (see pg 2 of the Parks & Rec Property Review & Usage report dated September 23rd).
Until a detailed usage report of all the fields has been produced I can not see how a new multi-purpose field on the Hyde Lane property can be approved. If there really had been a critical need for an additional field why did it wait to be coupled with the Long Lots School project which wasn’t going to start construction until the fall of ’24?
Why haven’t the 4 NON-profit organizations that have a vested interest in the towns fields gotten together to see how they could best utilize the $3.8 million they have sitting in cash & investments to rectify the dire field situation and then present that plan to P&Z? The lack of urgency on the part of these organizations shows that it isn’t as dire a situation as being presented and its more of a convenient land & money grab. It makes you wonder what else in the $100 million budget for this project is NOT necessary. Hopefully the Finance Committee will scrutinize this when requested to authorize the funding for this project.
FYI: The $3.8 million figure is taken from the balance sheets of the latest tax filings (Form 990) of Westport Soccer Assoc ($1.191 million), Westport Baseball & Softball ($1.144 million), Westport PAL ($1.037 million) and Friends of Westport Parks & Rec ($428 thousand). You would think with the incredible amount of money sitting on the balance sheets of these NON-profit organizations the possibilities would be endless on what can be done to the EXISTING fields in town. For example, overhauling the underutilized Doubleday field into the premier multi-purpose field in town. Also, Doubleday & Wakeman baseball fields which have been neglected (pitching mounds not the standard 10″, grass growing in the infield dirt, dangerous infield lips, etc) could be drastically improved including adding dugouts, scoreboards, etc.
These are among many unanswered questions that need to be addressed before the most expensive project in town gets approval from P&Z and the Finance Committee.
I’m not sure why this part is so difficult to understand: there is an existing field that is utilized 7 days / week during spring and fall, it is slated to be destroyed and built over when the new school is built, and will be returned when the construction is finished (or the site allows).
Even when the proposal had a baseball diamond on it it was still understood to replace the current field (which also has a baseball diamond on it).
Leaning into this as the key issue that needs to be sorted out or that will uncover the nefarious activity during this process that so many seem convinced exists is just noise and ignores the facts that have existed since day 1.
I find it unfortunate that in one comment it is suggested that the gardeners go and do their activity in Bridgeport and take the bus there.
Westport should be able to accommodate the different needs of our diverse population. We should celebrate it, not attack it.
As a Board of Education member and father of four – of course I embrace kids as the priority. I don’t believe that to achieve that goal we need to step on the gardeners or boot them from their community home.
I am proud we have 8 schools in our town – we need to collectively fight to maintain and upgrade them as 1st class educational facilities. We need to do that together. Long Lots is both over-crowded and well past its its useful life. This is a crisis in the making and it’s been brewing for a decade.
Westport Community Gardeners are not the reason that Log Lots School building is an embarrassment and they are not standing in the way of a new facility being built.
I am also proud we have over 20 playing fields in Westport. Several have seen better days and are not being used to their full potential., They require upgrades and improvements which will require real dollars. We should make these investment in our youth.
Finally, I am also proud that Westport has a Community Garden full of good and diverse people. They are part of Westport too.
I am highly disappointed by this compromise. It seems spiteful. Park the trucks on the current garden during construction if that is required. Use terrace 1 for staging to get a school built as the top priority.. Close the gardens for several years during construction and limit all access to the campus beyond the safe education of Long Lots students and teachers. Gardeners will absolutely have share in the sacrifices during several years of construction.
However, is it really too hard to promise to return the Westport Community Gardens to their current home after construction is complete? That would be a fair a reasonable compromise, not what Jen Tooker has proposed. We can do better for Westport.
Robert,
The property is not going to look the same after the school is built. Everything is shifting around. We will no longer have the same exact layout as before to justify putting the gardens back exactly where they were. We still have a need for the multipurpose field which is heavily used by the school itself, and throughout the year (except in Winter) by organized sports and camps. The land use after the new school is built needs to be looked at from scratch to find a way to place back the fields and the gardens. I don’t know if you looked at the 8-24 application to establish the gardens in 2025, but it clearly mentions that the location of the gardens can be used for future athletic fields. This was the memorandum of understanding, and the gardens did not have a permanent status, and in fact, their usage did not come ahead of the athletic fields.
Typo above: The gardens were established in 2005 (not 2025).
I imagine your voice, while reading your thoughts, to sound like William f buckly jr. Loosen up bro. Wow really uptight.
I take the bus to bridgport all the time man, you got a problem with that?
So in your opinion, the garden people should just wait years. Ha
With my plan, they can start gardening right away.
“We can do better”…= canned nonsense
Napoleon once said, a man is neither milk nor toast.
But you my friend like to play both sides
Running for something? Just dont pander too much it comes off the wrong way in text
I will conclude my comments with a poem:
All hail the westport dictator,
Oh, im glad you acknowlage her right as the boss, because are not.
Ok, .. he was so smart, the town let him play a small part.
He went to every meeting, hs heart was bleeding.
His philosophy of compromise, had the effect of making him sound wise.
But it was his pride, that got in his way
Until this very day, he couldnt choose a side..
Todd,
I would simply state that we need to focus on the facts, and we do have space in Westport for a community garden. So let’s not unnecessarily distract from what we need to achieve here: build a new school as quickly as possible, and then figure out how to restore the fields and gardens.
What is the rush?
What happens if the gardens are placed back in the same exact location after construction is completed?
Check the following submitted Proposed Site Plan in the last 8-24 application to P&Z:
https://www.westportct.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/83670/638378813288800000.
Existing gardens extend all the way to the first dotted red line on the left (labeled Terrace 1).
The multi-purpose field will then be reduced to a 9v9 soccer field, which will be a further reduction of space that is currently available in the upper field. This will impact not only the Long Lots school children who use the field for their school organized events, but also all elementary school aged children across Westport that use the upper fields in organized sports practices and games. Practices use all of the grass area of the upper field, with parents sitting on one side, and as many as 5 or 6 teams on the field. The other fields in town are also heavily used.
What happens if the gardens are placed back in the same exact location after construction is completed?
Check the following submitted Proposed Site Plan in the last 8-24 application to P&Z:
https://www.westportct.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/83670/638378813288800000.
Existing gardens extend all the way to the first dotted red line on the left (labeled Terrace 1).
The multi-purpose field will then be reduced to a 9v9 soccer field, which will be a further reduction of space that is currently available in the upper field. This will impact not only the Long Lots school children who use the field for their school organized events, but also all elementary school aged children across Westport that use the upper fields in organized sports practices and games. Practices use all of the grass area of the upper field, with parents sitting on one side, and as many as 5 or 6 teams on the field. The other fields in town are also heavily used.
Joe.. you don’t get to have your cake and eat it…. A comment you and yours have so fondly fostered.. how dare the gardeners have their cake and eat it.. really ?
the special interest members only club of ax murderers.. according to you.
well I have news for you in this town of 28,000 people…
Schools and gardens are equally important. Not that I expect you to agree, but you may end up delaying this project. With your ideas and zero logic. It’s not all about you.
How about you take a deep breath, and remember all us tax payers who are happy to spend our hard earned tax dollars on the school. Be it new or renovated.
How about a “thank you”
And stop looking to have your cake and eat it.
Mary,
First of all, no one has accused the gardeners of being murders. But we do want to enhance the security at the school, and restrict access to the property and parking in line with the rest of the schools.
The reason that the gardens are in the project of the school is because we need to build a new school right next to a functioning school. The gardens were allowed on the property as an extension of a recreational activity similar to the athletic fields, and based on the memorandum of understanding, Parks & Recs can use the location of the gardens for future athletic fields if needed.
As for the other stuff you are saying here and in other comments, I don’t have much to say, except that my children will not benefit from a new Long Lots school. I am very certain that your views are not representative of the towns views, and I am here to make sure that the voice of the children is also heard, so that the town can make the right decision and move forward.
No Joe ! Wrong AGAIN ! As always.
You and yours have basically alluded to the gardeners being murderers, terrorists, rapists and pedophiles .
So quit right there.. the so called “fear” of the parents, just utter bullshit, is as much of a joke today as it was yesterday. And one nobody even gave a single thought to until last week after the police chiefs speech. Again, this security threat is garbage.
Far more chance some crazy lunatic parent or past pupil, would go in and shoot out the school !
Let’s be frank my friend. As history teaches us.
Next the gardens are not where they are because the school gave them permission in fact thankfully they are NOT part of the school campus. They sit beside it.
Not sure how long that will take to sink into your brain.. I know you do not like to hear these facts. But grab some Q tips.. these are facts.
And last but by no means least. You do NOT have to build a NEW school.
Check out my proof on the GFA renovation… wasn’t Gfa info but the contractor !
I’ve posted it several times.. especially for you.
But Joe I have the sense you are not listening to smart people.
$35 million… adding over 100,000 sq feet.
Far faster than a total redo. Far cheaper..
but who am I ? Oh that right.. I’m just a tax payer.